I'm interested to know what it is about the Bible that has convinced you that it is of divine origin. I've read most of it and I didn't get that impression. So I would like to ask what parts of the Bible are so insightful, prescient, beautiful, well-written (etc - choose your own factors here) that they could only have come from a supernatural source?

Like I said, I wasn't particularly awe-struck by what I read. Am I wrong to expect to be blown over by a book that's been authored by God? Or is this essence lost in its translation to English by men?

It's funny Jake, you seem to be my exact opposite. I had such a strong opposition to the Bible and Christianity that no one could really approach me with any arguments that had any particular effect on me. But one day I just happened to pick up a Bible that someone gave me and was lying around in my room.

The funny thing was that, I didn't expect to be awe-struck by anything at all, I just thought that maybe there might be some small element of truth in it ... somewhere. But I was so completely awe-stricken by every verse I happend to flip open that it completely blew my mind and changed my whole life.

The bible teaches us that we don't choose God, but that he chooses us.

In other words, it is not enough for us to simply pick up a Bible and expect to find God.

Isiah 65:1 says "I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said, 'Here am I, here am I.'"

I think if you somehow start to understand this then you will have a chance to be awe-sticken, if not then you are in trouble.

I'm interested to know what it is about the Bible that has convinced you that it is of divine origin. I've read most of it and I didn't get that impression. So I would like to ask what parts of the Bible are so insightful, prescient, beautiful, well-written (etc - choose your own factors here) that they could only have come from a supernatural source?

Hmmmmm, okay! Ill playÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Lets see where this goes. Why am I, a former hedonistic atheist, fully convinced that the Bible is of divine origin?

The many eyewitnesses to the life, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

The fact that these eyewitnesses spent the rest of their lives (mostly as itinerant preachers of the Gospel they eye-witnessed) ostracized form those they knew (family member, friends etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦), totally changing everything they knew and followed, wanted by authorities under penalty of imprisonment and death, then the majority of them dying torturous and horrendous deaths (crucifixion, sawn in half, boiled in oil, beheaded etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) instead of betraying what they eye-witnessed.

Eye-witnessing miracles myself.

Like I said, I wasn't particularly awe-struck by what I read. Am I wrong to expect to be blown over by a book that's been authored by God? Or is this essence lost in its translation to English by men?

Also keep in mind, some folks refuse to be “blown away” regardless of the evidence. Romans chapter One points to this as well.

The funny thing was that, I didn't expect to be awe-struck by anything at all, I just thought that maybe there might be some small element of truth in it ... somewhere. But I was so completely awe-stricken by every verse I happend to flip open that it completely blew my mind and changed my whole life.

The bible teaches us that we don't choose God, but that he chooses us.

In other words, it is not enough for us to simply pick up a Bible and expect to find God.

Isiah 65:1 says "I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said, 'Here am I, here am I.'"

OK, so I just tried what you did. In my NRSV I got Psalm 87 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ a short song about the IsraelitesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ spiritual home. Not mind-blowing at all. Then I took my KJV and flipped it open to check that out that version of the Psalm. Imagine my surprise when I opened the KJV right away atÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

Joshua 4:19.

There was nothing mind blowing about that either, a nice idea about remembrance. At least it wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t one of the geocentric or genocidal verses in that book.

But a person's response to art, music or religion is deeply personal, so I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t intend to debate anyoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s beliefs here. I was just thinking that, as works of literature, the divinely-inspired books of the Bible should wipe the floor with something that was just penned by mere mortals.

Why am I wrong to assume that in a blindfold Pepsi challenge with any other piece of literature, anything inspired by the greatest being in existence should win every time?

OK, so I just tried what you did. In my NRSV I got Psalm 87  a short song about the Israelites spiritual home. Not mind-blowing at all. Then I took my KJV and flipped it open to check that out that version of the Psalm. Imagine my surprise when I opened the KJV right away atÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

Joshua 4:19.

There was nothing mind blowing about that either, a nice idea about remembrance. At least it wasnt one of the geocentric or genocidal verses in that book.

But a person's response to art, music or religion is deeply personal, so I dont intend to debate anyones beliefs here. I was just thinking that, as works of literature, the divinely-inspired books of the Bible should wipe the floor with something that was just penned by mere mortals.

Why am I wrong to assume that in a blindfold Pepsi challenge with any other piece of literature, anything inspired by the greatest being in existence should win every time?

Where did I say that flipping open a Bible would blow anyones mind???? If scripture alone was enough to blow anyone's mind then the jews certainly wouldn't have crucified Jesus.

Do you really think the way to find God is through some kind of "method"?

When I picked up the Bible that time, I wasn't trying to test God. The very fact that you are making cheap wise cracks about this shows exactly why nothing happens.

I'm interested to know what it is about the Bible that has convinced you that it is of divine origin. I've read most of it and I didn't get that impression. So I would like to ask what parts of the Bible are so insightful, prescient, beautiful, well-written (etc - choose your own factors here) that they could only have come from a supernatural source?

Like I said, I wasn't particularly awe-struck by what I read. Am I wrong to expect to be blown over by a book that's been authored by God? Or is this essence lost in its translation to English by men?

1) Science knows that 3 things are needed to create a universe. Time space and matter.Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.a. In the beginning = time.b. God created the heaven = universe.c And the earth = matter.

2) The position of the earth compared to the sun, plus the earth's tilt and it's rotation determines where we are in time.Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:How could someone who wrote the Bible so long ago know these things unless they could peer into space from a Creator's view point?

3) Three is the number of life and the trinity, seven is God's perfect number. a. The earth is the third planet from the sun and has life.b. Water takes 3 molecules to make and is essential to all life.c. Light from the sun comes in 3 colors: Red Green and blue (RGB). But when put through a prism splits into 7 colors (God's perfect number).d. Our universe came in 3 dimensions: Length, width and depth.e. Time comes in seven basic parts: Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years.f. There are 7 days to a week.etc...

4) The Bible is the top selling book around the world. No other religious or secular book even comes close. And it still outsells everything. According to statistics from Wycliffe International, the Society of Gideons, and the International Bible Society, the number of new Bibles that are sold, given away, or otherwise distributed in the United States is about 168,000 per day.

5) It is the most attacked religion by atheists and others. Why go after a lie when you can go after the truth? For if all religions were the same then all would be attacked as much. But that is not what we see.

6) Four is the number of completion. a. There are four seasons. Four divided by twelve is 3 (God's number for life).b. Four phases of the moon.c. Four parts to a full day.d. The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon, and the distance between the moon and sun is 400 times more than the distance moon and the earth. This math makes it possible for a perfect total eclipse that allows us to see the outer atmosphere of the sun while the total eclipse is going on. This also allows us to use a prism during this time to see the flash spectrum of the sun which has allows us to know what gases the sun is made up of. http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=456e. In the YEC belief there used to be a canopy that surrounded the earth until it fell when a meteor hit it causing the flood. And since there are six layers to the atmosphere: 1. Troposphere 2. Stratosphere 3. Mesosphere 4. Thermosphere 5.Ionosphere 6. Exosphere...The canopy would be number 7. God's perfect number.

7) The Bible is the only religious book that has prophecy and predictions.Predictions: over 8,000Fulfilled prophecy: 3,268 versesUnfulfilled prophecy: 3,140

And I could go on and on with this stuff. And I have not even pulled out my book on this yet.

Unknowable things can only be divinely inspired. Knowledge is not something poofed out of the air when there really is not anyway to obtain a certain type of knowledge. I could make this post really really long on different information concerning the Bible, but I doubt you would read it all.

You can google: Bible prophecies, Bible predictions, Bible statistics, etc... and find a wealth of information. But just like with any search, some sites are better then others.

Where did I say that flipping open a Bible would blow anyones mind????

You said:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“[O]ne day I just happened to pick up a Bible that someone gave me and was lying around in my room.

The funny thing was that, I didn't expect to be awe-struck by anything at all, I just thought that maybe there might be some small element of truth in it ... somewhere. But I was so completely awe-stricken by every verse I happend to flip open that it completely blew my mind and changed my whole life.Ã¢â‚¬Â

So I gave it a shot myself. It completely blew your mind. It didn't blow mine. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s all. The results were disappointing.

Do you really think the way to find God is through some kind of "method"?

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not trying to find God. I asked what it is about the Bible that makes people think it could only come from a divine source. Nobody had offered any specifics so I had a flip through.

When I picked up the Bible that time, I wasn't trying to test God. The very fact that you are making cheap wise cracks about this shows exactly why nothing happens.

Fair play, it was a cheap joke. But I could have landed on Psalm 87 twice. Then what would you have said?

Hmmmmm, okay! IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll playÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s see where this goes. Why am I, a former hedonistic atheist, fully convinced that the Bible is of divine origin?

The many eyewitnesses to the life, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

The fact that these eyewitnesses spent the rest of their lives (mostly as itinerant preachers of the Gospel they eye-witnessed) ostracized form those they knew (family member, friends etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦), totally changing everything they knew and followed, wanted by authorities under penalty of imprisonment and death, then the majority of them dying torturous and horrendous deaths (crucifixion, sawn in half, boiled in oil, beheaded etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) instead of betraying what they eye-witnessed.

Eye-witnessing miracles myself.

Thanks Ron.

I've read your posts in the historicity of Jesus thread, I think we would differ over how much of the Bible is first hand eye-witness testimony.

But since you're playing along, I will too. Take the ascension. Should I not expect the divinely-inspired eye-witness accounts of the ascension to be in perfect accord with each other; free of even a perceived contradiction? It appears that I may be asking too much.

Also keep in mind, some folks refuse to be Ã¢â‚¬Å“blown awayÃ¢â‚¬Â regardless of the evidence. Romans chapter One points to this as well.

Yes, UppsalaDragby has also suggested that it's my fault that I'm not getting it. You're both welcome to your opinions on that.

I'm interested to know what it is about the Bible that has convinced you that it is of divine origin. I've read most of it and I didn't get that impression. So I would like to ask what parts of the Bible are so insightful, prescient, beautiful, well-written (etc - choose your own factors here) that they could only have come from a supernatural source?

Like I said, I wasn't particularly awe-struck by what I read. Am I wrong to expect to be blown over by a book that's been authored by God? Or is this essence lost in its translation to English by men?

See my sister site www.bibleevidences.com. While you can always find a way to dismiss and explain away a handful of items we would present you, you can't dismiss the body of evidence that makes our case overwhelming. The BIble is always remarkably accurate whenever it touches on any topic we can confirm scientifically, such as the contrasting gravitational effects on the Pleiades and Orion. It's historical accuracy far surpasses its contemporaries, eg the Biblical account always matches the writings on archaeological findings, while the contemporary secular accounts do not (such as the names of nations, kings, etc); the scores of prophecies, many that can be confirmed via secular, hostile sources; a consistent message throughout despite being written by 40 different authors; heroes of the Bible do no leave out accounts of their human frailty and mistakes, such as King David's infidelity and murder, etc. No other religious book gets anywhere near the Bible in these aspects, they fall far, far behind and are littered with easily refuted claims.

1) Science knows that 3 things are needed to create a universe. Time space and matter.Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.a. In the beginning = time.b. God created the heaven = universe.c And the earth = matter.

2) The position of the earth compared to the sun, plus the earth's tilt and it's rotation determines where we are in time.Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:How could someone who wrote the Bible so long ago know these things unless they could peer into space from a Creator's view point?

Are you really claiming that ancient people would have been otherwise unaware that there are seasons, days and years? You donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need divine inspiration to know whether the sun or moon is out, and for how long.

And the concept of a firmament has long been shown to be incorrect. ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no such thing.

I agree that ancient people didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know that the Earth is tilted on its axis, or that it rotates. Does the Bible say that this is the case?

3) Three is the number of life and the trinity, seven is God's perfect number. a. The earth is the third planet from the sun and has life.b. Water takes 3 molecules to make and is essential to all life.c. Light from the sun comes in 3 colors: Red Green and blue (RGB). But when put through a prism splits into 7 colors (God's perfect number).d. Our universe came in 3 dimensions: Length, width and depth.

This just seems like arbitrary numerology. How do these things relate to the Bible? If the BibleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s authors knew that we are the 3rd planet from the sun that would be impressive. Did they? If the Bible says that it takes 3 molecules to make water then itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wrong there. A molecule of water contains 3 atoms. Is that what you meant?

e. Time comes in seven basic parts: Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years.f. There are 7 days to a week.etc...

Again, with the exception of days and years, these are arbitrary, man-made measurements that post-date the Bible. And only one of these units (days in a week) fits in with your numerology.

Still, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m interested to know where you get these ideas about numbers. What evidence do you have for your claims about the numbers 3, 4 & 7?

4) The Bible is the top selling book around the world. No other religious or secular book even comes close. And it still outsells everything. According to statistics from Wycliffe International, the Society of Gideons, and the International Bible Society, the number of new Bibles that are sold, given away, or otherwise distributed in the United States is about 168,000 per day.

Maybe so, but perhaps thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s because so many are given away. There have been billions of copies of MaoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s little red book of quotations published, but weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d both agree that it wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t divinely inspired.

If it outsells everything why is it missing from the bestseller lists? On Amazon UK the KJV isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even in the top 60 of free Kindle downloads, and thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s in its 400th anniversary year, when thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s been heightened publicity in the media.

5) It is the most attacked religion by atheists and others. Why go after a lie when you can go after the truth? For if all religions were the same then all would be attacked as much. But that is not what we see.

I expect thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s your perception, but thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s probably because as an English-speaking American whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s active on the internet the atheists you encounter are from societies where Christianity is the dominant religion, or the religion that they once had and then lost. A Saudi Arabian atheist would be more likely to attack Islam if he or she felt it could be done without risking imprisonment.

In my country and yours I would argue that in much of the media and public opinion, it's Islam that's been under greater attack in recent years.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Why go after a lie when you can go after the truth?Ã¢â‚¬Â is an interesting statement coming from someone who sets up a blog and moderates a forum that goes after mainstream science. Is there a reason why that observation shouldn't apply to your actions?

6) Four is the number of completion. a. There are four seasons. Four divided by twelve is 3 (God's number for life).b. Four phases of the moon.c. Four parts to a full day.d. The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon, and the distance between the moon and sun is 400 times more than the distance moon and the earth. This math makes it possible for a perfect total eclipse that allows us to see the outer atmosphere of the sun while the total eclipse is going on. This also allows us to use a prism during this time to see the flash spectrum of the sun which has allows us to know what gases the sun is made up of. http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=456e. In the YEC belief there used to be a canopy that surrounded the earth until it fell when a meteor hit it causing the flood. And since there are six layers to the atmosphere: 1. Troposphere 2. Stratosphere 3. Mesosphere 4. Thermosphere 5.Ionosphere 6. Exosphere...The canopy would be number 7. God's perfect number.

This is more numerology, but nothing directly from the Bible itself. What tells you that 4 is the number of completion?

a) Four divided by twelve is actually 0.33

b ) Or 8, or even 9 if you count the dark moon phase. You could always say that 8=4+4 or that 9=3x3, if you still want to fit phases of the moon into your 3, 4 and/or 7 thing.

c) Or just 2 if you read the poetic refrains of the first chapter of Genesis. (And the evening and the morning were the nth day)

d) 400 now? This is more of an argument for apparent fine-tuning than for the divine inspiration of the Bible. Unless the Bible mentions something about these relative distances. Does it?

e) As I remember it the Ionosphere isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really a separate atmospheric layer Ã¢â‚¬â€œ it overlaps some of the others, so I think thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a bit shaky.

And even Creation Wiki says that Henry MorrisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ canopy theory is largely discredited. But if the Bible indicates that its authors had divine inside knowledge about these layers then please show me where I can read it.

On the other hand, if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re just saying that if you add a layer that doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist to some layers that do then that adds up to one of 3 numbers that you are asserting are special in some way, then can you understand why IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m underwhelmed?

7) The Bible is the only religious book that has prophecy and predictions.Predictions: over 8,000Fulfilled prophecy: 3,268 versesUnfulfilled prophecy: 3,140

Your first sentence here is flatly false. Prophecies are found in other religious books, such as the Quran & Hadiths, and the Book of Mormon. Much like your extremely precise figures, some are hits and some are misses. I could get similar results with a free day and a penny.

And I could go on and on with this stuff. And I have not even pulled out my book on this yet.

Unknowable things can only be divinely inspired. Knowledge is not something poofed out of the air when there really is not anyway to obtain a certain type of knowledge. I could make this post really really long on different information concerning the Bible, but I doubt you would read it all.

YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re probably right, I doubt it too.

But if you can just give me the verses that support your claims above, I'll look into it, thanks.

Hmmmmm, okay! Ill play Lets see where this goes. Why am I, a former hedonistic atheist, fully convinced that the Bible is of divine origin?

The many eyewitnesses to the life, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

The fact that these eyewitnesses spent the rest of their lives (mostly as itinerant preachers of the Gospel they eye-witnessed) ostracized form those they knew (family member, friends etc ), totally changing everything they knew and followed, wanted by authorities under penalty of imprisonment and death, then the majority of them dying torturous and horrendous deaths (crucifixion, sawn in half, boiled in oil, beheaded etc ) instead of betraying what they eye-witnessed.

Eye-witnessing miracles myself.

Thanks Ron.

No problem, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re here for.

I've read your posts in the historicity of Jesus thread, I think we would differ over how much of the Bible is first hand eye-witness testimony.

Of course, as I could have commented about from the your initial posting in the OP. But hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the problem youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have up front Jake. You have absolutely no evidence that refutes the multitudinous first-hand eyewitness accounts. Therefore you have no substantive or factual basis for your assumptive opinion concerning the historical eye-witness testimony.

Also, that wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t my historicity of Jesus thread, it was started by another, I simply have numerous comments there. But, I do have post graduate experience in the historical studies (linguistics, social-cultural etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) of the Middle East. It interests me very much, and it is not hard to refute the misconceptions that atheists, agnostics, Biblical scoffers and liberal scholars attempt to force upon the letters of the New Testament.

But since you're playing along, I will too.

Okay, sounds like fun.

Take the ascension. Should I not expect the divinely-inspired eye-witness accounts of the ascension to be in perfect accord with each other; free of even a perceived contradiction?

No, actually, you shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t expect a Ã¢â‚¬Å“perfect accordÃ¢â‚¬Â when listening to the accounts from different persons, as different persons will speak and write from different perspectives. Different peoples will account for the same phenomena from the perspectives within their own social Ã¢â‚¬â€œcultural background, education, and personal upbringing (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). In other words, a Ã¢â‚¬Å“tax collectorÃ¢â‚¬Â will have a different perspective on a Ã¢â‚¬Å“happeningÃ¢â‚¬Â than will a Ã¢â‚¬Å“fishermanÃ¢â‚¬Â or a Ã¢â‚¬Å“scholarÃ¢â‚¬Â for example. And to attempt to argue that they should be the same is simply absurd.

I, myself, am an educator and am retired military. I, in no sense, will attempt to explain something using military jargon, to a civilian classroom and vise-versa (unless the class population is interspersed with military and non-military), in which case I will add caveats to the conversation within my explanations.

Further, if they did explain everything exactly the same Ã¢â‚¬Å“in perfect accord with each otherÃ¢â‚¬Â, the critic would then decry Ã¢â‚¬Å“collusionÃ¢â‚¬Â. You see, the Ã¢â‚¬Å“criticÃ¢â‚¬Â will attempt any excuse to pull apart the historical first-hand eyewitness testimony of the letters of the New Testament. Other than actually provide contemporaneous evidences that is. And why donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t they provide substantive evidence against the historical first-hand eyewitness testimony? Because they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have any, therefore they have to make arguments from a purely hypothetical and pre-suppositional opinion.

It appears that I may be asking too much.

Indeed, you areÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ I doubt you could even meet your own criteria in that sense.

Also keep in mind, some folks refuse to be blown away regardless of the evidence. Romans chapter One points to this as well.

Yes, UppsalaDragby has also suggested that it's my fault that I'm not getting it. You're both welcome to your opinions on that.

Indeed, as are you. But, I wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t necessarily speaking of you; I was speaking in general terms, as I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t had much interaction with you. But, I have plenty of experience along this line of argumentation with scholars, the technical thinker (logicians etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) and lay-person alike. So I must speak in generalities in certain circumstances.

The only advice I can give on this is Ã¢â‚¬Å“if the shoe fitsÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll reserve my opinion on the subject pending further review.

You might be interested in this link (pdf). You didn't specify what the Bible said about those stars, or where, so I googled it and this article from Creation.com says that

Can you expand on what you mean?

IS that the best you can do?

I'm very much aware of this article, it was later refuted amply by Donald DeYoung. Did you read the article? He uses OLD UNIVERSE cosmology to make his argument! When I first saw this article I took it very seriously and read it very carefully, because I was prepared to back away from my claim about the Orion and the Pleiades. Then his assumptions and reliance on millions of years became apparent.

I honestly had ranked it as the worst and sloppiest creation article I had come across in years. Funny its the one you gravitated toward.

Sorry I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t realise it was a competition. I just asked you to elaborate on your reference to Pleiades & Orion.

I'm very much aware of this article, it was later refuted amply by Donald DeYoung. Did you read the article? He uses OLD UNIVERSE cosmology to make his argument! When I first saw this article I took it very seriously and read it very carefully, because I was prepared to back away from my claim about the Orion and the Pleiades. Then his assumptions and reliance on millions of years became apparent.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve read the article but I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find mention of old universe chronology. He mentions millions and billions of years in 2 places, but both refer to time in the future not the past.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Modern astronomy has shown that the constituent stars of Pleiades are expected to dissociate within the next 250 million years, and hence Pleiades is an open or unbound cluster. That is, the motions and velocities of its constituent objects are such that the gravitational forces between them are not sufficient to hold it together (as a recognizable cluster) over the longer term. A Ã¢â‚¬ËœboundÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ cluster, by contrast, can be shown to still be a recognizable grouping even if its motions are projected forward by a billion years or so.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Does he say the clusters or the universe are old somewhere else?

DeYoung makes a similar claim in his rebuttal, along with the confident assertion that Ã¢â‚¬Å“the Pleiades cluster presently looks today much as it did at its beginning on the fourth day of creation,Ã¢â‚¬Â

How would he know this? The Crab Nebula doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t.

I honestly had ranked it as the worst and sloppiest creation article I had come across in years. Funny its the one you gravitated toward.

Lucky IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m wearing my belt, my sides have just split.

It was the 2nd result in Google after a Baptist sermon which takes the sensible (IMO) view that that verse is just one rhetorical question among many. Then comes a creationist link, so I clicked that in the hope that the explanation missing from your post would be there.

Interesting that you think there are sloppy and non-sloppy creation articles. I think I'll start a new thread about them.

"Modern astronomy has shown that the constituent stars of Pleiades are expected to dissociate within the next 250 million years, and hence Pleiades is an open or unbound cluster. That is, the motions and velocities of its constituent objects are such that the gravitational forces between them are not sufficient to hold it together (as a recognizable cluster) over the longer term. A 'bound' cluster, by contrast, can be shown to still be a recognizable grouping even if its motions are projected forward by a billion years or so."

Jake, I can only maintain a level of diplomacy for so long, so here it is - don't be dumb and waste my time. Read what you just quoted. For this creation author to accept evolutionary redefinition of "bound" to mean to "dissociate within the next 250 million years" is equivocation at best.. When God wrote "who can Bind the Pleiades", it is a completely accurate statement in the context of a young universe. If you believe in an old universe, then by golly you can reject this verse and make excuses for it.

I don't expect you to believe the verse, given your world view and rejection of the Bible. But I do expect you to accept surface facts, such as

1) The Pleiades are CURRENTLY gravitationally bound, and will remain so for a long time2) The Bible contains a verse where God claims to have bound the Pleiades

Do you deny either of these two facts? If yes, then don't expect a reply becuase you are too dumb to help and you might as well believe in pink monkeys that fly. If no, can 't you see that Hartnett makes an absurd argument for being someone who claims to believe in a YOUNG universe?